8th Ed. 7th Edition vs. 8th edition

So, the local store has gotten into Sigmar (yes, I know, the horror! the horror!) and I find that while I enjoy it, it doesn't scratch the itch that was satisfied by my time in the good old days with my old lizardmen army ( I now am on the 2nd one, the first having been lost to the ages of time). I used to play lizards in 7th and had great fun doing so, but never got around to 8th, as Flames of War took over for me and I fell out of the GW hobby.

Now, I do want to play fantasy proper again and have rebased everything to that end. Now my dilemma is whether I play with 7th edition rules or 8th edition rules. I have heard a lot of negativity surrounding 8th, and don't like some of the rules I have read (wonky skirmisher formations that are probably a pain to move without a special tray, and TLOS being the two culprits that come to mind), but other things seem good to me. I was just wondering what you guys thought of the various pros and cons for each of these editions. Player availability is less of an issue for me, as I also have a small (1200pts or so without upgrades) empire force to face off against for any victims that wish to join me.

Oldhammer is also not a thing in my town yet, so there is no set precedence there either. Also I know that the 8th edition argument also involves the awesomeness that are ripperdactyls and the hilarity of a giant dinosaur that shoots snakes at people, so let's base it on the merit of the rules themselves (and the balance therein) rather than what the lizards get in one over the other.

Thanks, I was less wondering about the power in the various editions for us lizard players, and more wondering about which edition was most solid in terms of game play as a set of rules, as I'm a bit torn, but having never played 8th, I realize that those with more experience might be better versed in the pros and cons of both editions as a rules set.

I've heard a fair bit of talk that 7th edition was more tactical, but 8th edition is superior in terms of balance. I started in 7th didn't get to play a lot of games. It is a good system, but there are a couple of army books that are extremely unfairly balanced (daemons being perhaps the worst offender). While there are definitely differences in the power level between army books in 8th edition, it is nowhere near as pronounced as in 7th. 8th edition is a little more forgiving tactically than 7th and a bit more random.

Another thing to consider is that there are a greater range of units available in 8th. Many new units/monsters were introduced in 8th, and you'll have no use for them inn 7th unless you make custom rules or utilize them as proxies. Not sure if that has any bearing on your decision, but I thought it to be worth the mention.

The game that I enjoy the most is 8th edition. I like that infantry are viable, which in my opinion they definitely weren't in 7th. I also like the improved balance aspect of it. I think you'll have fun with either game system to be honest.

I've heard a fair bit of talk that 7th edition was more tactical, but 8th edition is superior in terms of balance. I started in 7th didn't get to play a lot of games. It is a good system, but there are a couple of army books that are extremely unfairly balanced (daemons being perhaps the worst offender)

Click to expand...

But that's also true that some other armies suffered greatly in 8th, to the point that they were bottom tier.
Bretonnia was not updated and was stuck with an old armybook, BUT with new rules that penalize their playstyle (they charge but don't strike first, and stubborn makes key units almost unbreakable)

But that's also true that some other armies suffered greatly in 8th, to the point that they were bottom tier.
Bretonnia was not updated and was stuck with an old armybook, BUT with new rules that penalize their playstyle (they charge but don't strike first, and stubborn makes key units almost unbreakable)

Click to expand...

I definitely agree with you that 8th edition is not fully balanced. You have weaker armies such as Tomb Kings & Beastmen; you have mid tier armies such as Orcs/Goblins and Lizardmen; and then you have powerhouses such as High Elves and Warriors of Chaos. However, under 7th edition, armies such as Daemons of Chaos (I think DE too) were pretty much an auto win. For example, I think it was the Flamers of Tzeentch that were so undercosted, that if you doubled their points cost they would still be a good value. A friend of a friend actually tried this out; when he wrote his army list he took Flamers at a cost of 70pts (their actual cost was 35pts) and absolutely stomped his opposition anyways. Even a much tactically weaker player could often crush more seasoned generals if you gave him/her a strong daemons list.

While the 7th edition rule set is sound, the power creep towards the end of its cycle really hurt the edition, imho.

I am thinking now, that I will probably go with 7th edition, but tweak it to add step up (should have been a thing from the get-go). the benefits of playing a dead edition are myriad, you can fix the stupid stuff yourself being first among them. I currently have my lizards and about 1200pts of empire (1 cannon) so I can probably start going now once I find a willing victim.

yes, I've heard about 6th, especially ravening hordes, but I'd miss some of the fun toys 7th brought, and the rules are completely alien to me, there's about 30 extra pages that do who knows what, 7th is to 6th for warhammer, what 4th was to 3rd in 40k, a nice refinement, only 7th seemed to get broken armies at the end, while 4th edition 40k was probably the halcyon era for GW as far as I'm concerned.